Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/24/2002 6:16:02 PM EDT
I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this but I've got to ask. I've some people, a good number, talk about how stupid and how unconstitutional the ban on bay lugs, flash hiders, etc, are, and how good it is to give the gubment the finger by buying a pre-ban and stand up in the face of unconstitutional laws. From many of these people I've heard a lot of tough talk about resisting 'jackbooted stormtroopers' etc etc... and then The same people walk on egg shells over keeping their rifles post-ban legit, a law that most people agree is tantamount to cussing at a cop or J-Walking. ARs arnt like AKs to put back into original configuration, and its realy not that big of a deal (pre or post ban) but so many folks seem to talk like its a HUGE deal, that the ban represents the end of our Constitutional rights. Why the hell dont you just buy a pre-ban upper and be happy with it? Unless you live where the government acts like complete Nazis, no one is going to say anything unless you try and sell it. Before I knew about the 'no bayonets, no muzzle threads', I took and 'repaired' a Norinco MAK-90 by putting a folding spike bayo front sight back on it and threading the muzzle. I had that gun for five years and took it EVERYWHERE, I stored it at the Campus Police Station when I lived at the dorms in college, and no one ever said word one...I know technicaly I could be tracked down and thrown in the slammer, but except for one or two cases where guys were building pipe bombs and talking about overthrowing the government, how many people get arrested for 'post-ban' weapons with a bay lug and a flash hider? I've been told by LEOs that its the equivilent of smoking pot- be descrete and dont draw attention to yourself, and you've nothing to worry about...99% of the time. If the AWB is such a big deal, wouldnt the BEST way to tell legislators and everyone else, to stick their bill where the sun dont shine, be by just IGNORING the law? It worked for Ghandi. more....
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 6:17:34 PM EDT
My point is, why dont we stop complaining about these idiotic unconstitutional laws, and do something to REALY fight them? Stop the wild eyed talking about fire-fights with ATF in the hills, and make a realistic 'stand'? So many of you are active duty soldiers and vets- you guys have sworn your lives to face a possibly horrible death to protect the Constitution. Why are so many people so deathly affraid of resisting in a way which will ultimatly cost them some time and money, or is our money and a lack of legal hassels more important than our liberty? I'm asking a question here of you folks- why sit and bitch about it in forums, and complain about it at gunshows, and do somethign about it in your day to day life? I'm guilty of pessimistic worries about this crap too, and I'm sick of it. I'm sick of fearing 'what if?' What if the ATF is waiting to machine gun me and my wife for loving my liberty (and loving my guns!) I'm sicking of fearing what if I'm going to get arrested by some worry wart soccer mom and thown in jail for having 'the wrong rifle' or 'the wrong pistol' in my OWN HOME. I'm SICK OF IT. I say SCREW THEM. Do as you will, if we do this togeather, they cant arrest us ALL, even if I have to be one of the ones to go to jail, at least some of you guys will make it.....and eventually win. But we cant win if we dont resist, and we cant resist if we just sit around and wait for them to make more unreasonable demands of our liberty. These guys were hippies, they got their way by putting themselves in the way and not moving until they won. Its time we fight fire with fire- they get togeather and destroy guns, lets get togeather and MAKE GUNS. Fed Up With Defeatism. Amir
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 6:21:38 PM EDT
Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 6:35:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 6:49:35 PM EDT
Thank you for your courageous stand, Imbroglio.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 6:50:28 PM EDT
You've raised some good points. But speaking for me only, I see this: Going to jail for violating a law that you believe, no, KNOW, to be unconstitutional is still being in jail, and I really don't desire to do that. I support and sympathized with any who choose to ignore the AW ban and configure a post ban weapon as pre-ban, so long as they don't intend to use it to commit a crime, but I don't support criminal activity, period. However that doesn't mean that I'm going to put the 'evil features' on my guns and then take them out to a public shooting range under ordinary circumstances. I totally support acts of civil disobedience in this matter, and if it became widespread, I may even join in, but I'd want "safety in numbers". This ban will expire. At midnight, September 14th, 2004, to be exact. It's up to us to keep the pressure on our politicians to ensure that no replacement ban comes to life. I do my share. I have contacted a fair number of politicans and will contact more. I will not be part of the silent majority, but will instead make my voice heard, as I have been doing for some time now. Incidentally, I have it on reasonably good authority that in northern California, the anti-gun laws of California are routinely ignored, as if they don't exist. This is just the sort of thing that should happen EVERYWHERE. Imagine the statement that would be made if every gun owner were to coordinate and take one designated day out of the year to openly carry a rifle, pistol, or shotgun with them throughout the day, nationwide, in the course of their daily business. With MUCH more than one in three adults carrying, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, would dare raise a finger to stop any of us, and it would be a power play that would send shock waves through the entire political system, which is what is desperately needed. Incidentally, such an event would probably be accompanied by a unique event: There would probably be NO violent crime committed that day, and much less crime than usual of ANY kind would be committed on that day. This would have great shock value in proving the concept that an armed societ is, in fact, a polite (and safe) society. I could just imagine how the most rabid anti-gunners would respond...hopefully by crawling under a rock. Hopefully the same one they were born under. CJ
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 7:01:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 7:14:51 PM EDT
I refrain from wearing seatbelts in protest. I do other things too.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 7:43:23 PM EDT
I've been known to drive 60 mph in a 55 zone. Try and catch me Copper! [):)]
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 8:00:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2002 8:01:38 PM EDT by Philadelphia_GunMan]
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be [u]infringed[/u]" Making it illegal for me to have a flash hider on my gun [u]infringes[/u] my right.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 9:31:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shooter69: Thank you for your courageous stand, Imbroglio.
View Quote
I didn't make that post. It does show that people are finally getting fed up with the "we know what is good for you" unconstitutional bs that the government is spoonfeeding the citizens.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:14:38 PM EDT
1GUNRUNNER Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
I think Philadelphia_GunMan answered this one.
Aimless-
View Quote
My responcibility to my country and its ideals superceeds my life or any personal comfort. If it didnt, I wouldnt have joined the military. Already by being in the Guard (and the Army before that) I have put my personal life, including my wife, second. Ignoring the AW ban and other un-Constitutional gun laws isnt a sure arrest. 99% of the time, a LEO wont wast the time for a looks-like-pre rifle, and the 1% of the time, well, thats just a risk. Life is full of risks, and if it's God's will that I spend part of my life incarcerated, then its going to happen some how. It may as well be for a worthy cause. As for the current laws not being enough to motivate you to action- if not now, when? When they put a pro-active ban on all high capacity magazines? When they start having us turn in our 'assault weapons', or revoke our right to own a .50? Or how about when they start knocking on doors to make sure you arnt hiding any contraban? Not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just asking- when?
cmjohnson-
View Quote
I dont want to go to jail either, nor do I want to die a horrible death in combat, but I still joined a combat arm of the military. If you dont want to go, as my father says, dont get caught. I'm not asking you to parade the fact, not yet, that you're not accepting the constitutionality of the law. No doubt a few of us in any such 'movement' would end up going at first, but when the movement got big enough... Although the ban expires in 2004, do you realy think any current politician is going to go for that? If you show them that bad laws dont change things, they will realize that its a realy stupid law. This part requires a second 'front', a political front, to make SURE that the politicians who will do ANYTHING to get votes, dont get them. I realy, truely think that we out-number the antis....we just lack the sheer number and approach that their organizations have. I like your idea about an open carry day. It would have to be well publicized and orchestrated, to avoid startled bubba LEOs capping the first citizens he saw...
DoubleFeed
View Quote
In the old days people like us started on street corners. I dont realy care anymore, I'll go on the FBI's boards and hold this conversation- I'm not talking about overthrowing the governemnt, I'm talking about peacefull protest, an idea even Billary loves (if not the cause). I figure if I'm not on some list by now, this sure as hell isnt going to put me on one....We need to stop being affraid of these lists- the Federal government may have probelems, but this isnt the old Soviet Union, if we're all on one (if everyone here at least) then what are they going to do? Dissapear us all? Bring it on, I will fight, even if its short and ends in my demise, every time they shoot, our number grow. Look at how oddballs like David Koresh and Randy Weaver have become rallying points and drawn people into the pro-Liberty movement. Granted a lot of them are oddballs too, but they've also draw some mainstream citizens in.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:15:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be [u]infringed[/u]" Making it illegal for me to have a flash hider on my gun [u]infringes[/u] my right.
View Quote
The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear [u]arms[/u] shall not be infringed." The word "arms" is the only word in that sentence you can underline.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:18:20 PM EDT
I'm a soldier, my allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT some living document that can be bent at a whim to suit the times, it is written for ALL TIMES, and it is time that we STOP letting people walk all over us! At the same time, we cannot dress like some American Taliban and declair ourselves the law. As the unorganized militia we can only support a Constitutional state. We must be CITIZENS of the US, not an invading Army. We must support the right of our fellow citizens to lead their lives in liberty as well, even if we do not necessairy with them. We must teach these 'liberals' that we are not a threat, and we do not threaten their lives, we defend them. Being a soldier is tough, as is being a citizen, live and let live, WITH IN the Constitution.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:20:01 PM EDT
It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Rights are routinely and incrementally whittled away, be it guns , search and seizure, speech, religion, etc. I'll use taxation as an example..I don't know how many boneheads I hear complaining that if there is "one more tax" they'll go off on the gov't. But what they don't get is that the gov't ALREADY taxes you to death. You pay taxes on your income, on your property, on nearly everything you buy...then taxes to keep it in the form of licensing fees (cars).You pay taxes on the gas you put in your car which costs more because the people you buy it from add the costs of ALL the taxes they pay onto your price. The key is to shut up ..and set your limit.When that line is crossed, you need to act in a way that will bring attention and empathy to your cause.Tim Mcveigh set his line, he brought attention, but blew up too many people to get empathy.Had he blown the building at night, with no one there, things would have been different in this country. Make no mistake..NO ONE will come to your door and take your gun.They will ban configurations..then ammo..then zone out shooting ranges and hunting land. It will happen and you'll se it...but it will be so incremental you'll be unable to stop it. Find your line...each time someone stands up it will give strength to those behind them..You may get jailed..or dead..or worse.But consider the fight like a beach landing...If enough of us stand up and move forward...we'll win.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:22:43 PM EDT
Arms - as most of us would take to mean "firearms" taken from Webster's: Main Entry: fire·arm Pronunciation: 'fIr-"ärm Function: noun Date: 1646 : a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder -- usually used of small arms Does not mention - "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc" The people that are looking at the big picture need to look smaller - The Password is: Primers
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:24:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GuardTanker: Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT some living document that can be bent at a whim to suit the times,
View Quote
That started the day after it was written.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:38:20 PM EDT
1GUNRUNNER Who's side are you on? Are you one of those folks who doesnt care about the AWB because you dont like 'man-killers' and only keep 'hunting' weapons? As you're on AR-15.com, I doubt it. Make no mistake about it, the spirit of the AWB was not to ban these features, it was ment to eliminate the species from sales in the US all togeather. As for your 'arms' argument. Infringed: fucked with. Read the WHOLE amendment. The AWB certainly fucks with the choice of ARMS we are aloud, doesnt it? $1,200 post ban Matel rifles? AKs that cost $50 to make, who's manufacturers only see about a $100 profit, so thats $150, plus a retail markup, say, 30%? Thats $200. Gunrunner, there are forces trying to ELIMINATE us from the American landscape, the AWB denies us the manufature of arms, it infringes our ability to keep and bear arms necessairy for a well regulated militia in the 21st Century.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:42:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GuardTanker: 1GUNRUNNER Who's side are you on? Are you one of those folks who doesnt care about the AWB because you dont like 'man-killers' and only keep 'hunting' weapons? As you're on AR-15.com, I doubt it. Make no mistake about it, the spirit of the AWB was not to ban these features, it was ment to eliminate the species from sales in the US all togeather. As for your 'arms' argument. Infringed: fucked with. Read the WHOLE amendment. The AWB certainly fucks with the choice of ARMS we are aloud, doesnt it? $1,200 post ban Matel rifles? AKs that cost $50 to make, who's manufacturers only see about a $100 profit, so thats $150, plus a retail markup, say, 30%? Thats $200. Gunrunner, there are forces trying to ELIMINATE us from the American landscape, the AWB denies us the manufature of arms, it infringes our ability to keep and bear arms necessairy for a well regulated militia in the 21st Century.
View Quote
I gotta agree. There are a lot of great opinions and ideas being thrown around and Gunrunner just gets wrapped around the axle on the definition of what a gun is! Gunrunner, ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional. We've just been letting them happen one "it's not that bad of a law" justification to ourselves at a time.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:51:09 PM EDT
GuardTanker, Humm........ kept the rifle at the campus police station. Well, since you're from WA and you have more info on your details..... I've concluded you went to WSU. I don't think that UW has that option........ Laws are laws. No matter how stupid/dumb we think they are. Heck, there are still laws on the books that are 'outdated' some would say... but they're still on the books and can be enforced. Do I care about being PC? No. I've been told by 'seasoned' people that you must play the game if you want victory. Do I like politics? No. But under the system we have, we have rules to play by. Beat them at their own game, using their rules. What if they change the rules........ then win w/the different rules. Do I like being told what kind of car/truck to drive based on fuel economy. Heck no!!! Time will tell. This kind of power strugle has gone on for years, before your time or my time and will keep on going after we are gone. Oh, by the way.... GO COUGARS!!!!
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:51:16 PM EDT
GuardTanker The original intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution was to allow the people of this nation to not have to relive the history of the world by the persecution of the government, like the one they had just fled and won a war against. For the people to be free they must be able to protect themselves against the tyranny of government, [b]their own government.[/b] The only way to insure this is to be able to keep the government in check including by use of force if it ever came necessary. Have you tried to buy an Abrahams Tank or an Apache Helicopter lately? That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 10:58:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2002 11:04:27 PM EDT by maelcum]
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
Arms is arms is arms. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee your right to keep and bear [b]some[/b] arms, it guarantees your right to keep and bear whichever ones you wish to. And while we're at it, the only problem you'll have with buying an M1A3 is that the company that makes them does not sell them to non-governmental entities. There certainly _are_ privately owned tanks and helicopter gunships (at least 25 Huey Cobras are in private hands in the US) in this country.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:02:18 PM EDT
Gunrunner- Havnt tried to buy one- have you ever commanded one? I have, I do once a month. Know what? Its a machine, and its got a crew. That machine is usless without a crew, and although it cannot be taken out with another tank, like the Death Star, is suceptable to smaller assaults. Besides, the Militia isnt ment to defend against tanks. The Army isnt coming for you, the National Guard, for a large part, is on your side (including MY tank).
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:04:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By maelcum:
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
I don't know, but which part of [b]shall not be infringed[/b] are you having trouble understanding? [;)]
View Quote
The part that says when they still allow you to only [i]bear[/i] flintlocks you will be armed.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:10:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2002 11:11:36 PM EDT by 1GUNRUNNER]
Read this: [url] http://www.varmintcallers.com/second.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:14:06 PM EDT
Gunrunner, good LORD you're a tough nut to crack. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" If there are AR-15s out there, and we are prohibited from ownership, then our right to BEAR ARMS will be INFRINGED. More importantly the RKBA is a vital part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In the speech of the day (five years at University studying history allows me to say this with pretty good certainty) WELL REGULATED means not only neat and tidy, but properly armed for the time. A flint-lock is as much a detriment to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA as a fat, out of shape old man who can shoot well, but dies if he tries and runs.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:14:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear ARMS shall not be INFRINGED"... what constitutes an infringement on your rights? The founding fathers did not say "the right of the people to keep & bear arms that are constantly less technologically advanced than that of the US government or it's agencies". Consider the circumstances that gave rise to the authors of the Bill of Rights. They were struggling for freedom from a tyrannical and oppressive government, something our kids need to hear more of in school. They obviously weren't stating that the citizens of the US should only have arms for sporting & hunting purposes. We need to work harder than ever to correct the damage done to our birth right, but let's make sure that the things we do don't cost us more. That said, I agree with the spirit of those who advocate "civil disobediance" as a protest, but I am not decided on what this would gain us.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:21:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:24:13 PM EDT
You guys are barking up the wrong tree with me. I am telling you what is coming down the line. When and if this finally comes to a head it will be lost (unless). The more time passes the more Anti's there are. The chipping away at the freedoms in this country (and not just the Second Amendment) will continue. The other side is patiently waiting this out and it is working. If your gonna start a revolution, get on with your bad self; I'll be there.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:28:47 PM EDT
Ya gotta learn to play the game with their rules and beat them using their rules.......
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:28:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:29:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: The other side is patiently waiting this out and it is working.
View Quote
It is called Fabian Socialism.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:31:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
I am telling you what is coming down the line.
View Quote
GuardTanker and crew, write out all of your arguments, and then go through them with a fine tooth comb, from the opposite viewpoint. You need to iron out contradictions. Such as, the Constitution is not a living document, but it does include AR15s as militia weapons? How are you going to counter the point that the FFs never envisioned such powerful weaponry?
View Quote
On the flip side, does anyone think that the FF ever thought the govt would get this 'big'? And that 'our representatives' would start to view 'the people' as subjects that needed to be shown what to do???
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:32:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:33:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:34:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: The other side is patiently waiting this out and it is working.
View Quote
It is called Fabian Socialism.
View Quote
Explain this term. I have never seen it before.
View Quote
Diddo..... (well, it has the word socialism in it.... not good, that's for sure).
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:39:51 PM EDT
Gunrunner- I see what you are trying to do. I suspected it at first, now I know. Thankyou, please by all means continue. A bayonet without a whetstone is a usless implement. I dont subscribe to your dark view of the future though. We are fighting back, and this 'revolution' will be a peaceful one. If I have to fire my weapon once in this cause, I will have failed my primary objective. I think gun control is a fad, like prohibition, or the dark fear of the 'supernatural' like led our ancestors (well, some people's ancestors, mine were recovering from the Crusaides) to stone one another and take part in very bizarre events. We just have to make a stand the same way they do. Look- I'm not against arms CONTROL (not limitation or elimination). We dont need to 'beat them into submition', I'm not advocating the 'Final Solution' of everyone who is affraid of firearms, nor am I even talking about eliminating proper regulation of small arms, having been shot at by enough billey-n-bobs with TEC-9s or SKSs who thought they were pretty hot stuff because they could pull a trigger. May be its the military in me, but I dont think anyone aught to be given a complex peice of anything (car, airplane, etc) with out being first, able to use it responcibly. I personaly think (cringes) Israel and Switzerland have it right. A citizenry who is armed with GI AUTOMATIC rifles, and compelled to train at LEAST once a month in the use and care of their weapons. I think there ARE dangerous gun owners, they are the non-shooting folks who run out and buy a pistol or shotgun after some jackass with a truck full of Amonium Nitrate, or a boxcutter for that matter, blows up a bunch of innocent people (I say that with reservation, I dont believe there is any soul with out sin on Earth, just souls who are forgiven). These people buy the gun, a box of ammo. Load the gun, stick it in the hall closet and forget about it. Then Johnny Five Year Old comes along and tries to do what Wesley Snipes did on TV, and blows his playmate's head off. Make no mistake about it, these people are as much a danger to us as gun-grabbers. In a way they are the suicide-bombers of the gun-grabber world. But that is a discussion for another time....
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:40:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By Kaliburz: On the flip side, does anyone think that the FF ever thought the govt would get this 'big'? And that 'our representatives' would start to view 'the people' as subjects that needed to be shown what to do???
View Quote
How are you going to make this point without looking evasive and unsure of your position?
View Quote
[:\].......if I were a politician, being evasive and unsure might be a safe thing to do ... so I can't be nailed down to any one thing. We see it all the time. To my phrase....if I recall, there were some quotes from elected officials that supports the conclusion that they think they know what's good for the population.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:45:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2002 11:46:22 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:52:45 PM EDT
Doublefeed....ah...I get it. Will have to mull it over to get all my 'ducks in a row.'
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:54:20 PM EDT
Doublefeed- Its nearly one in the morning and I'm still working on one last class for my third BA (20th Century Conflict). The price of Free Speech, dealing with 'hate speech'. I need all my wits to finish that paper, and it would take all those wits (and more) to formulate my argument in a legal form. GunRunner- FANTASTIC article, thanks so much for the link. Gives me a great type of outline for that argument Doublefeed is on about.
Link Posted: 3/24/2002 11:57:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 12:00:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By Kaliburz: Doublefeed....ah...I get it. Will have to mull it over to get all my 'ducks in a row.'
View Quote
Yup. Sometimes you will be debating against experts, sometimes you will be trying to reason with people who are blinded by emotion. In either case, looking like you are unsure is a bad thing. Not being sure is a bad thing, because you will inadvertantly show it, and then your opponent will "swoop in for the kill". It is not pretty, watching somebody go down in flames in a debate, and even worse being the one who just got shot down by somebody who is more familiar with the subject matter than you. Approach this like a lawyer would, and explain it in layman's terms. This debate stuff is TRICKY, no?
View Quote
Yes, this debate stuff is tricky. (I have to get, work in the morning...like in 4 hours).
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 12:07:13 AM EDT
Well, TTFN all, thanks for all of it, and keep it coming. I'm glad I didnt write this board off as a bunch of ignorant hotheads after reading the posts about the Middle East- it seems that we've got some very sharp players here, and I'm honored to be able to pick their brains. Just remember- discussions like this are what lead to this great nation. They may be just words, but thats where ideas come from, and ideas are what make us great. Thanks for reminding me why I signed up to defend it all. Amir
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 12:07:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 12:09:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 5:06:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rotti:
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear ARMS shall not be INFRINGED"... what constitutes an infringement on your rights? The founding fathers did not say "the right of the people to keep & bear arms that are constantly less technologically advanced than that of the US government or it's agencies". They obviously weren't stating that the citizens of the US should only have arms for sporting & hunting purposes.
View Quote
The contrary is true, in "The Fedralist Papers", #29 by Alexander Hamilton, he specifically mentions, "....with respect to the people at large, than to have them PROPERLY armed and EQUIPPED.....", and later, "...little, IF AT ALL, inferior to them (the military), in discipline and the use of arms.......". The founders did in fact anticipate technological advances in arms, and were clear that the people should possess them, and be "well regulated", (trained), in their use! Case closed!! Fact; We are faced with an Un-Constitutional govt. The contract between the govt., and the people is null and void because of the violations of the contract, (Constitution), by govt..........
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 9:16:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I didn't make that post.
View Quote
Oh, I am aware of that. I was just comparing one great American patriot to another. [8)]
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 9:41:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: The contrary is true, in "The Fedralist Papers", #29 by Alexander Hamilton, he specifically mentions, ....
View Quote
Too bad the "The Fedralist Papers", have nothing to do with the law of the land.
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 10:15:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Again, I must ask; Where does The Constitution guarantee you: "bay lugs, flash hiders, etc"?
View Quote
I would ask, where does the Constitution grant the authority to [i]prohibit[/i] such things?
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 11:47:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Originally Posted By liberty86: The contrary is true, in "The Fedralist Papers", #29 by Alexander Hamilton, he specifically mentions, ....
View Quote
Too bad the "The Fedralist Papers", have nothing to do with the law of the land.
View Quote
Yet, the federalist papers are valuable in proving the intent of the Founding Fathers, since the people of this country are caught up in the idiotic argument over if the 2nd Amendment is addressing the citizens of this counry or not.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top